I have no issue with people asking about religious circ..
IF they are going to listen to the answers with respect and learn from them, as some people here have done.

The OP, however, is not interested in listening or learning. Her posts do NOTHING but belittle Orthodox Jews.. with flip references to "starting a holocaust." Her posts are so offensive and full of agenda..

that it frankly really PISSES ME OFF that no other "intactivists" here will call her out on it.
It is as though if you are passionately anti-circ..
any offensive, crappy, insensitive thing you say is OK, as long as it is anti-circ.

And I am really really disappointed in a LOT OF YOU for not disassociating yourselves from her repulsive comments.
No matter what you think of circ.. it is not okay to say horrible insensitive things to and about Jews.

I am also not sure what many of you hope to accomplish by debating Brit Milah with Observant Jews. Do you think you are going to talk them out of it?
You aren't. You aren't going to talk an Orthodox Jew out of what they believe to be a profoundly important commandment. It is a dead-end road.
If you just want to UNDERSTAND it.. then LISTEN.

This kind of stuff really makes me leery of the whole intactivist movement.. even though I am adamantly against circ and regularly give others info about it.

Just as the incredibly anti-feminist women hating rhetoric of some of the "men's movement" folks who have seized on the issue gives me pause.

I think some of you passionate "intactivists" outta be a little more particular who you get in bed with on this issue.

Asherah, maybe I'm completely exhausted, but I do understand the feeling behind the OP. : I often feel that people "hide" behind religion for various reasons, and while I might not choose to phrase it in the way that Queen of the Pride did, I can understand her feeling of aggravation.

I often feel that fundamentalist Christians, for instance, hide behind the Bible to justify their homophobia-- a set of attitudes that are particularly irritating when combined with perceived hypocrisy in more demanding areas of their lives. And I've expressed frustration with that plenty of times, probably in far less diplomatic terms than QotP did.

And, since she's not intimately connected with the history of Judaism, she may not realize that her desire to outlaw circumcision is tantamount to and a precursor of genocide in the eyes of many Jews.

She's defensive. I can see why, given the heated subject matter. We're talking about Religious Freedom of families versus Bodily Integrity of minors. There is a LOT of room for people to be angry on both sides of the fence, there.

If that makes you wary of intactivists, I can't help you. We're a motley crew, that much I can say. The OP can speak for herself. She isn't the voice of intactivism, anymore than I am.

Not only is it not an Islamic site, they state plainly that they are Evangelical Christians hoping to bring Muslims "to faith."

Uh huh.

So I chose one bad link to illustrate my point, which no one has yet refuted. Did you read the others? I especially like this one, that I believe you would be hard-pressed to argue is out to xtianize the Muslims:

Before delving deep into the question of female circumcision, we would like to make it clear that "female circumcision" means removing the prepuce of the clitoris, not the clitoris itself.

As for the Shari`ah stance on female circumcision, it’s a controversial issue among the Muslim scholars and even doctors.

In response to the question, the eminent Muslim scholar, Sheikh Yusuf Al-Qaradawi, states:

“Actually, this is a controversial issue among jurists and even among doctors. It has sparked off fierce debate in Egypt whereby scholars and doctors are split into proponents and opponents.

However, the most moderate opinion and the most likely one to be correct is in favor of practicing circumcision in the moderate Islamic way indicated in some of the Prophet's hadiths – even though such hadiths are not confirmed to be authentic. It is reported that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said to a midwife: "Reduce the size of the clitoris but do not exceed the limit, for that is better for her health and is preferred by husbands". The hadith indicates that circumcision is better for a woman's health and it enhances her conjugal relation with her husband. It’s noteworthy that the Prophet's saying "do not exceed the limit" means do not totally remove the clitoris.

Actually, Muslim countries differ over the issue of female circumcision; some countries sanction it whereas others do not. Anyhow, it is not obligatory, whoever finds it serving the interest of his daughters should do it, and I personally support this under the current circumstances in the modern world. But whoever chooses not to do it is not considered to have committed a sin for it is mainly meant to dignify women as held by scholars.

The author is:

Quote:

Sheikh Yusuf Al-Qaradawi is the head of the European Council for Fatwa and Research (ECFR), and the president of the International Association of Muslim Scholars (IAMS).

More About Sheikh Al-Qaradawi:

Sheikh Al-Qaradawi was born in Egypt in 1926. He learned the Qur’an by heart when he was less than 10 years. He joined Al-Azhar Institutes for his primary and secondary stages. Then he joined the Faculty of Theology and got the `Aliyya certificate (equivalent to BA degree at present) in 1952-53. He got also the 'Ijaza of teaching from the Faculty of Arabic Language in 1954.

In 1960 he obtained the High Preliminary Study which is equivalent to MA degree from the department of the Sciences of Qur’an and Hadith at the Faculty of Theology. In 1973 he got the PhD. degree with his dissertation about Az-Zakah wa-Atharuha fi Hall al-Mushkilat al-Ijtima`iyya (Zakah and its Influence in the Solution of Social Problems.)

He worked as a khatib, teacher, and writer at Al-Awqaf and Al-Azhar. He has published over 100 books dealing with various aspects of Islamic life, literature and poetry. His best known books include: The Lawful and the Prohibited in Islam, Priorities of the Islamic Movement in the Coming Phase.

Many scholars consider him to be a mujtahid of the Modern Age. He has been active in the field of da`wah and the Islamic Movement for more than half a century.

Are there any snarky smileys you'd like to use to respond to this one?

There is an ongoing debate on the value of neonatal circumcision. Indeed, the position of the American Academy of Pediatrics since 1975 has been that there are no valid or absolute medical indications for routine circumcision of newborn male infants. On the other hand, the results of recent clinical and epidemiological studies are supportive of the practice of circumcision in newborn and infant males. From a two-part study involving cohorts of 3,924 and 422,328 infants respectively Wiswell and Roscelli found a higher rate of urinary tract infection in uncircumcised compared with male circumcised infants. These investigators observed that as the circumcision frequency rate decreases, the incidence of urinary tract infections increases. (This study is demonstrably flawed and has been refuted many times.) Infection usually begins in the foreskin which becomes swollen and difficult to retract. A medium for bacterial growth and further spread of infection is provided by the fecal material trapped between the foreskin and glans of the penis. Such a condition probably leads to other more serious complications. (This is just an outright FALSEHOOD.)

Proper hygienic care of the penis, which includes regular washing, will prevent some infections, but among children this is difficult to maintain and is probably not as effective as circumcision. Some conditions, such as phimosis, often lead to circumcision at a later age that could have been prevented if it had been performed earlier. The possible risk for long term urological complications in the infected, uncircumcised male infant has not been properly studied. It is known, however, that as many as 50% of male infants with urinary tract infections will subsequently reveal demonstrable radiologic abnormalities. ( I.e., ultrasound demonstrates abnormalities in the kidneys/urethra, which is likely the cause of the UTIs, not the foreskin.) Thus, the performance of circumcision and the practice of sunan Al-fitrah as recommended in Islam is medically beneficial and reflects the wisdom of the Islamic statements.”

And Amy, would love to get more than a as to your position on female genital cutting for religious reasons.

Come visit the NEW QuirkyBaby website -- earn QB Bucks rewards points for purchases, reviews, referrals, and more! Free US shipping on great brands of baby slings and carriers and FREE BabyLegs or babywearing mirror on orders of $100+. Take the QB Quiz for personalized advice!

If you really feel it is okay to say things like
"Jews are not the only ones who have been persecuted"
and make references to "starting another Holocaust" in such a discussion..

well, we really have nothing to discuss.

And again, for the record, I did not circ my son.. and I AM an active intactivist.

I just choose to focus on the VAST MAJORITY OF CIRCS.. which are done by non-Jews in hospitals.

The focus on Jews is generally a pernicious red herring.
You want to get in bed with that, Toes...

well, it is your bed.

ITA! I think it bad form to suggest people practice their religion the way someone else sees fit. I have been hesitant to post anything to this thread as it has gone from bad to worse. I also consider myself an intactivist, and throughout my research on this subject, one issue remains clear to me; people will circ. for religious reasons, and because I may not like circ. to become routine, I would NOT dare to suggest that someone else practice their religion as I see fit. My faith doesn't require circ. for religious reasons, and I could have written the same post that I quoted above. I can understand why many here are offended. If this was my faith that was being questioned, and lets face it; maligned, I'd be defensive and highly insulted that someone suggested that I was hiding behind my faith.

Nobody here can possibly understand how I view my faith and how I view the traditions, sacraments, and scripture that I try to live each day by. I would therefore, never presume to tell someone else how they should view their own faith.

QOTP, I don't believe that you were intending to insult anyone, I sincerely don't. However, I know that if it were me, and I felt that my faith was being questioned, I would be upset by it too.

I know it's an ancient tradition and when I read that it is a requirement to have a (superior or any) place in the World to Come, to be foreskinless, and that there is a teaching that God intended man to be foreskinless and the "clothing of skin" God made for him when he left the garden was this foreskin:

Gen 3:21 And the LORD God made for Adam and for his wife garments of skins, and clothed them.

(altho that makes me wonder what the clothing of skin was he made for Eve--the hymen? the labia?--not to mention my own more gnostic ideas of what this clothing of skin refers to), I know I have no place to object to religious circing. I know there is no way in hell I will convince anyone otherwise and I have no desire to try.

Yet, when people say their partners (Jewish or not) say: "I have no problem being circed, my sex life is fine," I am so reminded of people who say, "I was spanked and formula fed and was forced to CIO and I am fine."

B/c I know the damage artificial baby milk does to the gut and the immune system, how it affects cholesterol levels in adulthood, predisposes people to diabetes, etc. I know it has damaged me. I admit it.

I know the psychological damage caused by hands-off parenting and physical punishment, as we all do here. People who suffer it (and I did make my first dd do it for a few months, Ferber style) are not fine.

So, just rambling here, but intactavists believe sex that includes a prepuce is ideal. Just guessing Jews believe sex without one is ideal b/c that is what God intends for his people. After all, this life is just the lobby of the real house they will end up in.

Sorry it this offends. I am just letting my mind try to wrap around the whole thing.

Wow. Well I was going to go to Target and return some socks, but instead I got caught up in this thread.

Amy, Chava, BB, BY, Mahdokt, Ashera, etc. you have all said it much more eloquently than I *ever* could.

Having recently had the obligation of bris mila fall to me (I had my son in August -- 3rd child, 1st son) I can personally attest that it is a difficult mitzva. All that Amy said about this is true. I think it may be the hardest thing I've ever had to do, religiously -- and that's saying something. I wasn't brought up religiously observant.

Would I ever consider *not* observing bris mila? No. It's commanded by the Torah. If I wasn't Jewish, would I circumcise? No.

I think aside from the obvious offensive comments and unbelievable chutzpa from people who don't understand/don't want to understand the Jewish perspective, I am most uncomfortable with the idea of "hypocritical Jews" only doing circumcision because it's the "thing to do."

Do they fulfill the mitzva of mila by doing it in a hospital? No, they don't. Do they fully understand the import of the mitzva? In a very basic way, they do. There is something in Judaism called a "pintele Yid" or a Jewish spark. It lives deep inside of Jews no matter how observant they are or are not of Torah law. It recognizes that there are certain mitzvot that are so important that they have been carried out for millennia -- despite active persecution, pogroms, etc. -- and that they have a basic connection to it and want to continue that connection. They obviously are not fulfilling the actual mitzva, they are not fully informed about what they are doing. But they sense that this is a fundamental duty as a Jewish parent, one that transcends their ignorance of their tradition and their otherwise lack of observance.

Every mitzva a Jew does brings light and holiness into the world, regardless of whether they observe other mitzvos in their entirety or even directly break a Torah commandment in some other way!

For some Jews, this inner spark of their Jewishness awakens when they have children and have to make these choices -- these decisions help them find their way in their tradition to more observance, or their own version of observance in whatever way they can.

But to call it hypocrisy is just a tad (tongue firmly in cheek here) harsh for all those parents who truly thought they were performing the mitzva as directed.

That's right, nobody can possibly understand how I personally view, hold, and practice my faith. My personal views are just that; my personal views. How could anybody understand that unless I shared it with them? That is of course, unless your suggesting that people can read my mind.

That's right, nobody can possibly understand how I personally view, hold, and practice my faith. My personal views are just that; my personal views. How could anybody understand that unless I shared it with them? That is of course, unless your suggesting that people can read my mind.

No, I was just assuming your views are similar to those of the people in your community of Christians. That you have shared your views in public, or at least with a few close friends.

I say "Christians" b/c you used the word "sacraments."

I do understand that no 2 people will ever think or feel exactly the same about their religious views, as we are all unique.

No, I was just assuming your views are similar to those of the people in your community of Christians. That you have shared your views in public, or at least with a few close friends.

I say "Christians" b/c you used the word "sacraments."

I do understand that no 2 people will ever think or feel exactly the same about their religious views, as we are all unique.

My views are fairly similar (the basic "idea", if you will) as other Christians. We all are definately unique in our personal religious views. I do, however, feel it is important to respect all religious views as we would want our view respected. kwim?

I didn't claim that it was a scientific study or peer reviewed. I put it out there to show that here was an epidemiologist that disagreed with the conclusions of the study.

Then I misunderstood you. To me, it sounded like you were saying: "This guy has proven beyond a doubt that HPV can't be transmitted by metzitzah bepeh and thus there's no need to discuss it anymore." I'm very sorry for insinuating such a thing – but I've seen this kind of sloppy argumentation way to often from circumcision advocates (not necessarily Jewish ones though).

Quote:

Even you claim he 'might have some points'. It is worth a look for an alternative view point, that is all. But it seems that it is a forgone conclusion that the original study was 100% correct and no point in looking at a critique.

BTW - if you look at scientific or medical journals, they ROUTINELY run 'opinion pieces' as you call them which raise questions about studies that those very scientific journals are publishing. And those are often the impetus for further studies and discussion.

I'm with you here. I know a little bit about how science works. No, of course the study he was referring to doesn't have to be 100% correct, but until it is scientifically proven that it is incorrect, we must consider it as "state of the art". Especially since ignoring a potential infection risk and going on with metzitzah bepeh can be dangerous – while using tubes until there is new evidence is the safe road to take. In any case it's better than probably losing another baby boy while the medical jury is out discussing this. And from what I gathered from newspaper articles about this whole episode, many Jewish authorities and doctors seem to agree with this approach.

Yes, this is a very interesting article. They argue convincingly why FGM is not only not a requirement of Islam, but even goes against its basic precepts. The only "problem" is, the arguments can be used to show that male circumcision goes against the very same precepts (fullfilling sexual relationships, integrity of body and spirit, God's creation needs no improvement). They have really argued themselves into a tight spot.

So, just rambling here, but intactavists believe sex that includes a prepuce is ideal. Just guessing Jews believe sex without one is ideal b/c that is what God intends for his people. After all, this life is just the lobby of the real house they will end up in.

You know, I think about the "I got formula and I am just fine" thing, too. I think it's different, but I could be wrong.

I was a teen in the 70's, in my 20's in the 80's. Sex, drugs, rock and roll, and pre-AIDs. I have, ahem, been around the block a few times. Some of my partners were circ-ed, some not.

In truth, as you know, every man has a different penis. Some are curved, fat, thin, long, short. Each one of those men has a different sexual experience based on his "equipment". Mostly the same, but a little different.

Although I understand the assumption that men who are cird-ed have lost something, I am not sure that it is really true for men who don't believe it. Yes, they don't know what they are missing, how it would be different. Clearly intact men can't compare to circ-ed men, either, and some intact men choose to circ as adults because they want that experience.

For us to say that their experience is not really valid, when they feel whole, complete and not damaged, seems incredibly arrogant. Its like telling a mom with a C-section that she didn't really experience birth. Of course she did. Not the way I did, but in her own way. Many women choose sections, and are happy with their choice. I may not agree, and I may feel that they have suffered an irrevocable loss, but what does that mean if they don't agree? How can I be the arbiter of all that is worthwhile in birthing?

Truthfully we all give up experiences based on the choices we make. I can't say for sure that my children would not have been happier if I had gone to work and provided them more things. Maybe they would. It is my personal value that having me available is more important, but I can't live an alternate life to see if that value is truth. So while I may feel that a working mother is losing something valuable, I can't claim to know that she is. If she herself feels that her life is more meaningful and complete because she works, who am I to say that she only thinks that because she hasn't experienced staying home?

I totally do not agree with RIC. I see no reason it should be done, and I think that parents should be actively educated about the risks and needlessness of having it done. However, I don't think it's my place to tell a circ-ed man that he is wrong in thinking he wasn't affected. If he thinks he was negatively affected, then he was. If he doesn't think he was, then in what way is he, except in my mind, according to my value and belief system?

Different doesn't have to be wrong. A circ-ed man experiences sex differently, but not neccessarily wrongly, just as a well endowed man experiences sex differently, but not neccessarily wrongly.

I am also just rambling. It just strikes me as wrong, somehow, to pronounce that all men have suffered when they don't feel they have suffered. There are a thousand and one life choices that might make me happier than the life I am actually living. The fact that I am happy with my life and my choices shouldn't be dismissed because I haven't experienced every other option before choosing.

Start by doing what's necessary; then do what's possible; and suddenly you are doing the impossible---St. Francis of Assisi

and you Chosen People keep doing it 3700 years later because it pleases YOU to do so, not became of any agreement? Maybe the desire & love of circumcision came first, and then your leaders built a religion around it?

(bolding mine)

if you had a point, you lost me right there where I bolded. it's 2005. do you somehow just not know any better?

do you want to be understood or do you just want to be obnoxious?

sorry y'all - I'll go back to lurking. I have no horse in this race. but for the moment I'm inclined to align myself with the pro-religious-circ camp just to be anti-LuAnn.

I have no issue with people asking about religious circ..
IF they are going to listen to the answers with respect and learn from them, as some people here have done.

The OP, however, is not interested in listening or learning. Her posts do NOTHING but belittle Orthodox Jews.. with flip references to "starting a holocaust." Her posts are so offensive and full of agenda..

that it frankly really PISSES ME OFF that no other "intactivists" here will call her out on it.
It is as though if you are passionately anti-circ..
any offensive, crappy, insensitive thing you say is OK, as long as it is anti-circ.

And I am really really disappointed in a LOT OF YOU for not disassociating yourselves from her repulsive comments.
No matter what you think of circ.. it is not okay to say horrible insensitive things to and about Jews.

I am also not sure what many of you hope to accomplish by debating Brit Milah with Observant Jews. Do you think you are going to talk them out of it?
You aren't. You aren't going to talk an Orthodox Jew out of what they believe to be a profoundly important commandment. It is a dead-end road.
If you just want to UNDERSTAND it.. then LISTEN.

This kind of stuff really makes me leery of the whole intactivist movement.. even though I am adamantly against circ and regularly give others info about it.

Just as the incredibly anti-feminist women hating rhetoric of some of the "men's movement" folks who have seized on the issue gives me pause.

I think some of you passionate "intactivists" outta be a little more particular who you get in bed with on this issue.

You want to ally yourselves with the likes of the OP...

you get NO CREDIBILITY with THIS non-circing Jew.

Antisemitism amongst "intactivists" is the elephant in the room. I noticed it almost immediately, and I'm not even all that quick on the uptake with this stuff. It's all over the place on the anti-circ board here and has been for the three years or so I've been a member of MDC.

Antisemitism amongst "intactivists" is the elephant in the room. I noticed it almost immediately, and I'm not even all that quick on the uptake with this stuff. It's all over the place on the anti-circ board here and has been for the three years or so I've been a member of MDC.

I don't want to jump to any conclusions here, so I am asking for clarification: Are you suggesting that all intactivists are anti-semites? Or are you stating that there are anti-semites mixed in with intactivists, that intactivists choose to pretend aren't there? I'm not understanding what you are implying....

Again, just asking... but doesn't that assume that all intactivists would intentionally ignore the anti-semite(s) because they are all at least against RIC together?

I think that is an unfair statement, and seems to paint all intactivists with the same brush. Just because intactivists tend to agree re: RIC, doesn't mean that all intactivists agree with each other on every single subject. I don't particularly care for people who are anti-semite, anti-Islam, or anti-any faith for that matter, and don't care to be labelled as someone who wouldn't say something otherwise, just to keep the status quo.